User:Spmg98/Neonicotinoid/Candencemcneil Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Spmg98 Neonicotinoid


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spmg98/Neonicotinoid?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Neonicotinoid

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead for this article is very detailed and informative and broken into different sections for the rest of the article, however the information included has not been updated or added upon by the author.

Content

The article is packed with a lot of information that is relevant to the topic and up-to date, however little was added by the assigned peer. Because the article seems to be fully packed with information it seems that there may not have been a lot that could have been added to the article.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article if very informative and unbiased/neutral.

Sources and References

The sources of this article if fairly updated with some coming from the past decade with authors of various backgrounds, and all of which worked. By looking at the talk page I could not see where any new sources were added by the assigned peer.

Organization

The content throughout the article is easy to read along with and flows throughout. Sections are placed where they belong with the information within them relating to the main point. There were little to none grammatical errors throughout the article.

Images and Media

There was one image included in the article which was the molecule of neonicotinoid. Although there is a cation describing the image, the image itself is placed in a fairly awkward spot within the article.

Overall

I feel the article is organized really well and kept a neutral and unbiased tone throughout. The information related to the main topic and did not stray away. But, the article was not improved through the assigned peer as there was so much information already present. I do think there is not much that could be added to the article other than more up-to date information from this year.